"Just yesterday, my opponent called my position on fuel efficiency standards extreme," said Obama. "It doesn't seem extreme to me to want to build more fuel efficient cars. Maybe the steam engine is more his speed."

Obama further added that the new CAFE standards will allow U.S. drivers to fill up their gas tanks "half as often." But when the new rules were finalized Tuesday, Romney failed to see the benefit to driving citizens.

"Governor Romney opposes the extreme standards that President Obama has imposed, which will limit the choices available to American families," said Andrea Saul, Romney spokeswoman. "The president tells voters that his regulations will save them thousands of dollars at the pump, but always forgets to mention that the savings will be wiped out by having to pay thousands of dollars more upfront for unproven technology that they may not even want."

While some are clearly unhappy with the new standards, others are seeing added benefits. Honda, for example, was delighted to see that the standards provided extra credits for those selling natural gas-powered vehicles. Tesla also jumped on the CAFE bandwagon when it learned that it could sell any credits for surpassing the standards to companies that haven't.

The CAFE standards will raise the average fuel efficiency of cars and light trucks to 54.5 mpg by model year 2025. These new standards, which were created by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOTs) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), were based off of the Obama Administration's first standards raised average fuel efficiency to 35.5 mpg by 2016. It was intended for cars and light trucks during model years 2011-2016.

The 54.5 mpg CAFE standard aims to save consumers more than $1.7 trillion at the gas pump, cut U.S. oil consumption by 12 billion barrels, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6 billion metric tons over the course of the program, and encourage the adoption of autos like electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrids.

It just doesn't make logical sense for them all to drag their feet, if thats what they were doing. It's a classic prisoners dilemma; if just one automaker had the ability to significantly increase fuel efficiency at little to no extra cost, they were confronted with two options..

1) Hold the line in an illegal collusion (which would make Democrats wet their pants if they could prove) and make X dollars profit

2) Rape the first-mover advantage for everything its worth and make a multiple of X, possibly succeeding so well as to force competing firms to close shop forever.

Given that these are profit-maximizing firms, what is the liberal logic to hold tight to option 1? I'll point out, btw, that even the OPEC cartel is partly a myth, as almost all members under-report their production. Generally they all pump flat-out, except Saudi Arabia.

And before you jump to a conclusion, remember that some automakers are still relatively "foreign," and have no cultural or personal attachment that would make them hesitate to lay their competitors low if given the chance. I've no doubt if GM could destroy Hyundai, they wouldn't bat an eye.

Prisoners dilemma, a cornerstone in economics, a basic concept used at the introduction to all modern logical game theory, expounded upon from the bachelors level up to PhD research, yeah. Ignore logic, ignore that education you likely received. Lets just roll with unsupported supposition instead. Troll.

The way the prisoners dilemma work is that both will be better off if neither prisoner says anything. However, studies show that the majority will jump at a perceived advantage and betray the other prisoner when presented with a "reduced" sentence by turning over their partner. What these studies show is people do not often do the logical thing but rather react to a perceived advantage.What this works out to is that most manufacturers saw no advantage in basic R&D to make real improvements unless forced by outside pressures.

That's not the way the math works in this situation. By inaction as a whole, the industry could maintain the status quo, which is okay for mafia bosses with culturally established territories, ranks, etc.

But the first one to move in commerce as the advantage, as in war. This is obvious; if one automaker could make supposedly simple investments and turn the competition to dust, billions of dollars of pure profit stood to be made, along with perhaps a mindshare dominance in the public that could last for an entire generation.

Sig wouldn't offer a logical response because, like liberals and their conspiracy theories, it was a reaction based on an emotional gut reaction distaste for corporations. He could neither prove cartel-like behavior nor logically suggest why a company would shoot itself in the foot for the benefit of their competitors, and so far neither have you.